Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-01.txt

[Tom Taylor <tom.taylor at rogers.com>]

I'm proposing in response to your concern on advertisement to add the following 
section to the document. Does this meet the requirements?

<section anchor="applic" title="Applicability Statement">

<t>Because realm-based redirection is not part of base Diameter behaviour, 
support for realm-based redirection by the client cannot be guaranteed without 
advertisement at the application level. Designers of new applications MAY wish 
to incorporate a requirement to support realm-based redirection through 
normative reference to this document.</t>

<t> An erstwhile service provider who deploys realm-based redirection without 
support from advertisement imposes a risk upon clients that they are unable to 
complete requests for the service concerned because, thanks to prevailing local 
policies, they have not derived alternative routes to other domains that can 
support the service. The decision to impose such a risk and the administrative 
actions that providers may take to mitigate this risk are based on non-technical 
considerations and are therefore out of scope of this document. </t>

</section><!-- applic -->


Mark Jones wrote:
> The use case I had in mind when I made the comment in the DIME session was a wholesaler for AAA that was previously offering service for a given realm but the AAA service is now being provided by a new wholesaler.
>
> So the old wholesaler would use the redirect realm AVPs with:
>    Redirect-Realm = <realm of new wholesaler>
>    Redirect-Realm-Usage = ALL_REALM
>
> The other question I had on this draft was how one advertises support for the realm redirect functionality. I understand from Tom's presentation that nothing too bad happens on the client if it does not support these AVPs but the intended redirect did not happen either and the redirecting server is unaware of the error. The way new functionality (i.e. beyond base functionaltiy) is advertised in Diameter is through the use of application ids in CER/CEA exchanges. If new applications require redirect realm functionaltiy, I would expect the specifications for these new applications to state this dependency and include a normative reference to the redirect realm draft. I think the redirect realm draft should clarify this because redirect realm is not base functionality.
>
> Regards
> Mark
>
> ________________________________________
> From: dime-bounces at ietf.org [dime-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sebastien Decugis [sdecugis at nict.go.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:24 PM
> To: Tom Taylor
> Cc: dime at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-01.txt
>
> Ok, I did not get that, sorry :) Just ignore my comment then.
>
> Thanks,
> Sebastien.
>
> Tom Taylor a écrit :
> > No difference, but didn't we say in the meeting we preferred not to
> > overload Redirect-Host-Usage?
> >
> > Sebastien Decugis wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Just quickly going through the new draft revision, I did not find any
> > > difference between Redirect-Host-Usage (RFC3588) and the new
> > > Redirect-Realm-Usage being defined. I am just wondering if the content
> > > is the same, if we cannot just re-use the Redirect-Host-Usage AVP?
> > > Please let me know (and pardon me) if I did miss a subtle difference :)
> > >
> > > My 2 cents,
> > > Sebastien.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Taylor a écrit :
> > ...
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime